Time to return Third level fees

jock101

Is it time to reintroduce third level fees in Ireland in the next budget for next year as it costs 3-4 billion euro a year, and pump the money into primary and secondary education. Have we too many over educated people with no work for!

Denerick

I'm agnostic on 3rd level fee's. On the one hand, it enabled me to do an intellectually satisfying yet intrinisically worthless degree, on the other, it enabled me to do an intellectaully satisfying yet intrinsically worthless degree. No doubt I would have thought twice if it was going to cost me 10k per annum.

Eliot Rosewater

I'm a student myself, and my attitude towards fees is at odds with most of my peers.

I don't believe in universal free fees. There's some very compelling arguments for providing positive opportunity to intelligent young adults who would otherwise not have chance to go to college. Such arguments are made stronger when one thinks of the economic utility of science and engineering qualifications. All well and good.

Now, the students will be out protesting on November 3rd and it's worth getting one thing straight: they are not fighting for the poorest in society, though they'll try and paint it that way. The least well off are covered by the grants scheme and social welfare, and they don't pay registration fees and probably wouldn't be liable for full fees. The free fees system is, and always has been, for the prime benefit of the middle class folk (like myself).


There are a number of good arguments for fees. Firstly, universities are under-funded and are in dire need of extra revenue if they're to stay competitive on the world stage, the stage that matters in a globalised economy. Most Students' Union will ironically tell same. The best way to fund them is to get the people using their services to contribute more.

Secondly, the free fees system creates a huge culture of complacency. It is, for instance, considered an actual achievement in student society to go to all your lectures in one week. Routinely missing lectures (which the government is paying for) is not something that is given much thought. In fact I talked to a fellow last year, in my degree programme, who missed all of the second semester. He didn't get through to second year, you'll be surprised to hear.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think we should have the same system as the UK but pay about twice what they do.

ie the government lends you the price of the fees with an inflation linked loan. When you are in employment earning above a cut off rate your loan is deducted from your salary. If you wish you can pay up front or pay it off earlier.

I'm well aware graduates pay more taxes in the end, but they also benefit personally from education financially and otherwise.

I think 7K a year is fair, you come out of college with a debt of 28k which is only repayable upon commencing employment. Therefore it never hangs over you like a bank debt. Wanna go travelling for a year? your repayments go on hold until you return to work. If you earn your full degree you get a 10% discount on your fees

These conditions mean the cost isn't offputting for anyone. I wouldnt ever go higher than 7k a year though - as that would begin to put some people off

no need for means testing as everyone is in the same boat not having to pay fees up front. simples.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm a student myself, and my attitude towards fees is at odds with most of my peers.

I don't believe in universal free fees. There's some very compelling arguments for providing positive opportunity to intelligent young adults who would otherwise not have chance to go to college. Such arguments are made stronger when one thinks of the economic utility of science and engineering qualifications. All well and good.

Now, the students will be out protesting on November 3rd and it's worth getting one thing straight: they are not fighting for the poorest in society, though they'll try and paint it that way. The least well off are covered by the grants scheme and social welfare, and they don't pay registration fees and probably wouldn't be liable for full fees. The free fees system is, and always has been, for the prime benefit of the middle class folk (like myself).


There are a number of good arguments for fees. Firstly, universities are under-funded and are in dire need of extra revenue if they're to stay competitive on the world stage, the stage that matters in a globalised economy. Most Students' Union will ironically tell same. The best way to fund them is to get the people using their services to contribute more.

Secondly, the free fees system creates a huge culture of complacency. It is, for instance, considered an actual achievement in student society to go to all your lectures in one week. Routinely missing lectures (which the government is paying for) is not something that is given much thought. In fact I talked to a fellow last year, in my degree programme, who missed all of the second semester. He didn't get through to second year, you'll be surprised to hear.

Great post.

amacachi

I'd sooner just have fees for all with loans in place. Everyone! :P

Wolfe Tone

If fees are brought back I am fcuked.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If fees are brought back I am fcuked.

You should avoid it if you're heading into college this year.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

You should avoid it if you're heading into college this year.

I am in first year now, if they are brought back would I have to pay it next year would I not?

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I am in first year now, if they are brought back would I have to pay it next year would I not?

I think fee's would only ever apply from the first years entering college. Thats the way they did it in the UK anyway.

amacachi

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I am in first year now, if they are brought back would I have to pay it next year would I not?

No way to know for sure, though haven't they had disclaimers for the last few years saying something about how you may be liable for fees in future years? They seem to have all the options open to them.

jock101

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I am in first year now, if they are brought back would I have to pay it next year would I not?

Oh yes! The Batman Batty O'Thief (FF Minister of education at the time), said last year that fees were not being introduced last year, but he added that if they do return. That current students should not think that they will not have to pay for the rest of the course year left, just because they were in college before the first year they will be introduced!

metrovelvet

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm a student myself, and my attitude towards fees is at odds with most of my peers.

I don't believe in universal free fees. There's some very compelling arguments for providing positive opportunity to intelligent young adults who would otherwise not have chance to go to college. Such arguments are made stronger when one thinks of the economic utility of science and engineering qualifications. All well and good.

Now, the students will be out protesting on November 3rd and it's worth getting one thing straight: they are not fighting for the poorest in society, though they'll try and paint it that way. The least well off are covered by the grants scheme and social welfare, and they don't pay registration fees and probably wouldn't be liable for full fees. The free fees system is, and always has been, for the prime benefit of the middle class folk (like myself).


There are a number of good arguments for fees. Firstly, universities are under-funded and are in dire need of extra revenue if they're to stay competitive on the world stage, the stage that matters in a globalised economy. Most Students' Union will ironically tell same. The best way to fund them is to get the people using their services to contribute more.

Secondly, the free fees system creates a huge culture of complacency. It is, for instance, considered an actual achievement in student society to go to all your lectures in one week. Routinely missing lectures (which the government is paying for) is not something that is given much thought. In fact I talked to a fellow last year, in my degree programme, who missed all of the second semester. He didn't get through to second year, you'll be surprised to hear.

They are not allowed to have attendance policies in Ireland. I went to private education for third level in the US and the teachers could make up their own, a lot picked the miss three and you get kicked out. And that is when the money is coming out of a private pocket! I do not think the Irish government should be paying for bored middle class kids NOT to show up.

Instead of abolishing them altogether, maybe means testing is a way to do it.

Also they could cultivate alumni fundraising and loyalty the way the US colleges do. I hear from my HS and College at least once a month each, with various activities, meet ups, etc. I never hear from UCD.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jock101

metrovelvet wrote: »

They are not allowed to have attendance policies in Ireland. I went to private education for third level in the US and the teachers could make up their own, a lot picked the miss three and you get kicked out. And that is when the money is coming out of a private pocket! I do not think the Irish government should be paying for bored middle class kids NOT to show up.

Instead of abolishing them altogether, maybe means testing is a way to do it.

I agree with that, means tested for the very poor, and a loan system for the middle classes. The Wealthy classes should just pay up front!

jock101

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have just summed up the Irish freestate since 1922 to now!

Changed the Union jack to the Tricolour, but the class system does not change!

rainbowtrout

metrovelvet wrote: »

They are not allowed to have attendance policies in Ireland. I went to private education for third level in the US and the teachers could make up their own, a lot picked the miss three and you get kicked out. And that is when the money is coming out of a private pocket! I do not think the Irish government should be paying for bored middle class kids NOT to show up.

Instead of abolishing them altogether, maybe means testing is a way to do it.

Also they could cultivate alumni fundraising and loyalty the way the US colleges do. I hear from my HS and College at least once a month each, with various activities, meet ups, etc. I never hear from UCD.

I get emails from UL Alumni Association every few months. Every now and again they ask for donations. But while free fees exist, I'm not too keen on sending them a cheque so the current students can live in luxury student villages, each student with their own bedroom with en suite, spending their days watching Jeremy Kyle.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was with you until the last paragraph.. why does the public sector have to get yet another bashing here? It could just as easily be while Tom and Jane emerge from university and get jobs in Daddy's company or in a company belonging to one of Daddy's friends where they spend the day faffing about but don't really do any work.

dashboard_hula

I am currently not financially in a position to return to 3rd level education, despite the fact that I know what I want to do, that it is a practical and employable degree, that there is even a shortage of people with these qualifications, and I have been in full time employment with 2 very short gaps since the age of 20.

Should the concept of a government loan for college come to fruitition, why can't people in fulltime employment take advantage of that also in order to go back to school part-time? At the moment, it seems that the only way I'm ever going back to college without racking up a bunch of extra debt is by leaving my job and making sad eyes at SW.

My OH went to university in New York, and got through with a combination of grants, student loans and working summers to make up the balance, but he still paid the majority of the fees himself. Didn't do him any harm, he managed it, and he certainly wasn't from a rich family. The cost of the fees in the US was absolutely shocking though. I don't think we'd have to pay nearly as much over here, but I agree that we should have to pay.

Wolfe Tone

What happens if one is from a middle class family, and the parents refuse to pay?

jock101

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What happens if one is from a middle class family, and the parents refuse to pay?

Get a loan!

dashboard_hula

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What happens if one is from a middle class family, and the parents refuse to pay?

Government loan, repayable after graduation, upon starting employment, perhaps through increased tax?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

They are not allowed to have attendance policies in Ireland.

It's interesting you should mention that. The College of Medicine in UCC operates an attendance register, with a certain percentage attendance required to pass. One of the campaign promises of the incumbent SU President, Keith O'Brien, was to reduce this percentage to 50%.

The fact that this attitude made it onto a Students' Union campaign manifesto shows that the kind of stereotypical complacency of college students isn't limited to a noisy micro-minority: only having to go to half your lectures is clearly a desire shared by a sizable proportion of the student body.

It also doesn't inspire confidence in the future generation of doctors! "There's some irregular breathing sounds from your right lung Mr Rosewater, but I'm afraid I missed those lectures..."

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's interesting you should mention that. The College of Medicine in UCC operates an attendance register, with a certain percentage attendance required to pass. One of the campaign promises of the incumbent SU President, Keith O'Brien, was to reduce this percentage to 50%.

The fact that this attitude made it onto a Students' Union campaign manifesto shows that the kind of stereotypical complacency of college students isn't limited to a noisy micro-minority: only having to go to half your lectures is clearly a desire shared by a sizable proportion of the student body.

It also doesn't inspire confidence in the future generation of doctors! "There's some irregular breathing sounds from your right lung Mr Rosewater, but I'm afraid I missed those lectures..."

If someone can pass all the assignments and exams with poor attendance then whats the problem?
They will probably be working to pay for fees.

musicmonky

the €1500 "student services charge" aka registration fee is a lot of money to some people and this will go up in this budget.

So its not free for some people.
http://www.studentfinance.ie/mp7559/check-grant-levels/index.html

rainbowtrout

I've often wondered would it work if fees were introduced with the annual fee reduced on a sliding scale for year each passed. Eg. Full fees for first year (7k was mentioned by someone in an earlier post), then if you get into second year reduced it to 5k, third year reduce it to 3k and then free in fourth year or have nominal sum like 1k to reward the student who actually bothers to go to college and do a bit of work.

There are plenty of students who just head off to have a good time for first and second year and then drop out. It would certainly change their tune if it was going to cost them in the region of 12k to go on the piss for a year or two.

Brendog

bringing fees back is the last thing that should be done. It will force more people to go abroad or go on the dole.

jock101

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I've often wondered would it work if fees were introduced with the annual fee reduced on a sliding scale for year each passed. Eg. Full fees for first year (7k was mentioned by someone in an earlier post), then if you get into second year reduced it to 5k, third year reduce it to 3k and then free in fourth year or have nominal sum like 1k to reward the student who actually bothers to go to college and do a bit of work.

There are plenty of students who just head off to have a good time for first and second year and then drop out. It would certainly change their tune if it was going to cost them in the region of 12k to go on the piss for a year or two.

Maybe for Arts and Business degrees, but I can see no one doing an taxing course like Engineering or Science etc..!

XxMCRxBabyxX

Brendog wrote: »

bringing fees back is the last thing that should be done. It will force more people to go abroad or go on the dole.

Not if, as discussed here, we bring in a loan system with those fees

rainbowtrout

20Cent wrote: »

If someone can pass all the assignments and exams with poor attendance then whats the problem?
They will probably be working to pay for fees.

Because not all students are like that. There are plenty of students who miss lots of lectures but study by themselves, and plenty who miss lectures and don't open a book from one end of the year to the next. Come end of year exams lecturers are looking at an overall lower standard in the exams and assignments and end up passing students with a lower standard than previous years. Overall standard in the course drops.

I gave a guy help with first year chemistry about 2 years ago. The first couple of weeks he brought a laptop with him because the lecturer did all his lectures on powerpoint and made them available on the college network so he had them all downloaded. A couple of weeks later he came with nothing except the title of the section he was supposed to be doing. I asked him where his lecture notes were. Told me the new lecturer didn't do powerpoint and used overheads and there were no notes on the network. I asked him did he write down the notes or even topic headings from the overheads and he said no. The attitude was 'why would i have to do that, is it not going to be provided for me?' This is an intelligent guy but the attitude seems to be spreading. He also didn't seem to connect that he didn't know what to study because he had written nothing down. :eek:

XDivaX

Wow wow such strong opinions!

I wonder what is 'wealthy family'???

What if students don't want loans? don't you think the worries of staying on top of repayments would be one of factors influencing how well they do? Never mind trying to juggle work and college (assignments are endless)

I'm personally sick of whole system- I can't get grants at all and I'd often struggle for 2months or so after paying for fees upfront, and i still needed to save up beforehand, only to be reminded further seeing those people with grants (not all of them) go YAY!! my grants came lets book flights or buy car massive tv whatever! When I actually could do with it!

Now that ain't to say that all of those who get grants 'abuse' the system but it sickens me seeing few people do that. Especially when they're just 'drifting' through college

rainbowtrout

jock101 wrote: »

Maybe for Arts and Business degrees, but I can see no one doing an taxing course like Engineering or Science etc..!

Depends, there are a large amount of people who still choose their courses for the CAO form based on the fact that they think they will get the points and they satisfy course requirements.

jock101

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Depends, there are a large amount of people who still choose their courses for the CAO form based on the fact that they think they will get the points and they satisfy course requirements.

There are also a lot of people who will choose their courses for the CAO form based on the fact that they think they will get an easy course with low lecture hours for drinking, partying and getting laid with girls or boys!:rolleyes:

Most people I know who chose to do a difficult course like Science or Engineering, are on the dole or doing a job that no education is needed! they worked hard doing 35 hours plus with Labs. They tell me they all wish they had done Arts or Business!

rainbowtrout

jock101 wrote: »

There are also a lot of people who will choose their courses for the CAO form based on the fact that they think they will get an easy course with low lecture hours for drinking, partying and getting laid with girls or boys!:rolleyes:

Most people I know who chose to do a difficult course like Science or Engineering, are on the dole or doing a job that no education is needed! they worked hard doing 35 hours plus with Labs. They tell me they all wish they had done Arts or Business!

Maybe nobody should be allowed attend college until they are 23. Find a job after the Leaving Cert, see what the real world is like, save money for college, pay the fees and choose a course they are interested in and have some chance of employment from (not Philosophy and Ancient Classical Civilisations)

XxMCRxBabyxX

XDivaX wrote: »

Wow wow such strong opinions!

I wonder what is 'wealthy family'???

What if students don't want loans? don't you think the worries of staying on top of repayments would be one of factors influencing how well they do? Never mind trying to juggle work and college (assignments are endless)

I'm personally sick of whole system- I can't get grants at all and I'd often struggle for 2months or so after paying for fees upfront, and i still needed to save up beforehand, only to be reminded further seeing those people with grants (not all of them) go YAY!! my grants came lets book flights or buy car massive tv whatever! When I actually could do with it!

Now that ain't to say that all of those who get grants 'abuse' the system but it sickens me seeing few people do that. Especially when they're just 'drifting' through college

On the subject of loans, the whole point will be that students won't have loans when they are studying, but when they are working and able to pay them off.

And I have the same issue with the grant except i really should be entitled to one! There is no money at home at the moment, nothing! I'm the only one earning a proper wage at home at the moment but because of the way the system is for children of the self-employed I can't get a grant right now and it drives me mad watching half my fellow students blow their grant on anything they want. Especially the girl who hasn't even managed to get her grant because every time she has been given the money to pay her reg fee so she can get the grant she spends it on drink instead. I think we all know how her grant money will be spent....

20Cent

jock101 wrote: »

There are also a lot of people who will choose their courses for the CAO form based on the fact that they think they will get an easy course with low lecture hours for drinking, partying and getting laid with girls or boys!:rolleyes:

Most people I know who chose to do a difficult course like Science or Engineering, are on the dole or doing a job that no education is needed! they worked hard doing 35 hours plus with Labs. They tell me they all wish they had done Arts or Business!

Would that not be a charter for taking advantage of young people. Get people with good leaving certs, pay them crap and treat them like crap because they are saving for college. Then they get out of college with big debts so they have to take whatever is offered so they can be paid and treated crap again. Great for employers though!

Steve Jobs said in an interview that one of the things that made Apple a great company in the beginning was that they did hire philosophy, history graduates and poets!

Not against fees myself if it is done fairly, those who can pay do and cheap loans that do not have to be paid until the graduate is earning a decent wage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't know.
Do you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So it's a no then.

dan_d

Undecided on this.

It's certain that there are students in there who arse around for 3/4 years then trot off on their travels.

Equally it's certain that there are plenty of people who work damn hard and who, if fees were introduced, would struggle to afford to go to college.

For starters, they need to get rid of the "registration fee" idea, and just call it fees.

Secondly, maybe a loan system would work above a certain pay threshold (parents pay) but equally, a family who has 3 kids with 2 in college and who don't qualify for that would be very badly stung by a system like that. For example, I'm the eldest of 4 and for the last say 8 years, there's been at least 2 of us in college (and still is). Both my parents work in so called "professional" jobs, that earn fairly good, but average wages. We never qualified for anything - lived at home while attending college, and since we were from Dublin, my parents insisted we chose Dublin universities since they simply couldn't afford to pay for us to live in another city. Which was fair enough.

It's all very well to say that middle-class people give their kids the best chance possible to get into college, and Joe from Ballymun can't afford Gaeltachts etc....but then the problem lies more in the secondary school level doesn't it? If Joe has enough application, then there's no reason he shouldn't do just as well. There's a lot more to it than just that.

We can't afford free fees to this extent any more. It's a tough one.

Possibly an approach would be (for starters) cut the number of IT's and colleges we have - amalgamation, closure. If your parents earn above, say, 100k, you should pay, because honestly, it can be afforded. If they earn below a certain level - say 40k - you should be exempt and possibly take into account the number of brothers and sisters in your family..it's one thing to have an only child with low earning parents being exempt compared to a child with 4 brothers and sisters and a low earning parent.It's the chunk of people in the middle of those 2 earning brackets that are the problem...the fairest way to decide for them.

I also think the grant system should be adjusted. I know plenty of college friends to whom the grant was drinking money, because their parents (often as farmers, though not always), qualified, but also had an apartment in town or whatever so they didn't have to shell out quite as much money as it would appear. Having said that, there are those who genuinely needed the grant too.

So at the end of my ramblings, I think an approach with many aspects is needed, not just one universal one. Course the bigger problem right now is that we are sinking all this money into these students, and they are all leaving....but that's another day's talking.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

None. They are all in law school.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bamboozle

my tuppence worth is that given the extremely high cost of living in Ireland nowadays the only jobs we can potentially attract here through foreign direct investment are high paying jobs which require qualified & educated staff.

I think something fair like the first 2 years of college to be paid for and any years thereafter paid by the state...this would see longer & higher intensity degrees such as engineering, medicine, physio cheaper & potentially more attractive to do.

i'd also like to see free master's and subsidisied PHD's (based on ability) for area's where we need to educate and retain our top graduates, the like of science, maths, medicine, IT

for all the bluster from govt about a 'smart economy' we'll need to have our brightest and best given the best possible education to ensure international corporations recognise the high calibre of graduate coming out of our universities.

dan_d

bamboozle wrote: »

I think something fair like the first 2 years of college to be paid for and any years thereafter paid by the state...this would see longer & higher intensity degrees such as engineering, medicine, physio cheaper & potentially more attractive to do..

That's actually quite a good idea.

bamboozle wrote: »

i'd also like to see free master's and subsidisied PHD's (based on ability) for area's where we need to educate and retain our top graduates, the like of science, maths, medicine, IT
.

I agree with you completely, but maybe focusing on our under-grad system first would be best.

Donegalfella, I am aware that parental involvement is key in education, however I wasn't going to get into the ins and outs of it in this particular thread. I do agree with your following comments, but I think there is also onus on the education system to provide the best system possibly for training teachers. Currently, I do not believe that exists, particularly in secondary education. When it comes to parents, they simply HAVE to be involved at primary level (which many parents seem to blissfully ignore), because by the time most kids get to secondary level, the die as you say has been cast. While parents can do their best to make sure a child does homework/works for tests/passes exams, there's not much a parent can do if their child has a useless teacher for a subject. Technically, we should have a system that allows kids to pass exams without requiring grinds etc...our teachers should be good enough and interested enough to allow that to happen. Obviously there will be those kids who need extra work and resources, which should be on the school to provide. There will always be a minority who insist on private schools or grind schools, but the majority of our kids should be able to get a good education from our "free" system without resorting to external means.

I also agree that there needs to be some sort of separation for those who aren't academically inclined. As for the boys being in the lesser percentage in college - I would think that's a sign of recent times with the boom in construction, and would pass no comment on that for another few years, to see if things even out a bit more.